BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Scream stolen

 
 
Benny the Ball
11:45 / 22.08.04
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3588282.stm
 
 
sleazenation
11:52 / 22.08.04
Cheeky Munchies.
 
 
uncle retrospective
11:57 / 22.08.04
Wow, so they've nicked two of my favourite paintings.
I've got about 2 grand I can put on my credit card and I think they'd look great in my front room. What do you recon my chances are?
 
 
Benny the Ball
12:02 / 22.08.04
Just make sure that you get receipts...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:22 / 22.08.04
Can we move this to Art, Fashion and Design?

This sounds pretty drastic. Not only was it stolen but they did it in a particularly crude way- at gunpoint while the gallery was open in the middle of the day despite a lack of security on the premises. That suggests that someone was a bit desperate to lay their hands on the painting. I think it's a little difficult to conceive of- a bunch of men in black stealing a painting while surrounded by people- but it also opens up a whole bunch of questions regarding museum security and precisely how we should guard works of art that are open to the public.
 
 
Linus Dunce
18:35 / 22.08.04
We could move move it to AF&D but I'm not sure anyone will visit. Unless someone prints it onto a t-shirt ...

It was a pretty desperate crime. Presuming (more through generosity of spirit than anything else) that the thieves were intelligent enough to foresee the impossibility of a sale, there will be a ransom demand.

"What's strange is that in this museum, there weren't any means of protection for the paintings, no alarm bell ... The paintings were simply attached by wire to the walls."

How is attaching a painting to a wall by a wire inappropriate? That's what paintings are for. Quite how an alarm bell would have prevented the armed theft is not clear, unless the idea is that the thieves would be so embarrassed in creating a scene that they would drop the booty and run. The alternatives are to cover the art in e.g. perspex, install armed guards or to contain the viewer in some other way; all of which would change the nature of the work and the viewer's experience profoundly, without preventing theft by the the mad, the bad or the stupid.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:44 / 22.08.04
But an alarm in a building like that would probably go straight to the Police Station and that would mean that someone would be sent out as soon as the painting was taken off the wall rather than after the thieves left the building and someone rang them.

The point is that the security in this gallery was extremely low. You could conceivably take paintings off the walls in most of the London galleries but getting out of the building with no trouble at all doesn't seem quite as plausible. An alarm would sound at the very least.
 
 
Linus Dunce
19:40 / 22.08.04
There is no evidence that the security was low at all, beyond what was implied by the reported perceptions and opinions of a French radio producer. It is not clear whether he has any experience or understanding of gallery security, whether or not he spoke Norwegian or even whether he actually visited the rooms in which the paintings were hung.

The thieves had guns. That's why no one stopped them.
 
 
Benny the Ball
20:35 / 22.08.04
The manner does conjour one of those filmic villains that has a room full of art that no-one can or will ever see, that has been stolen simply because they want something stolen.
 
 
Lord Morgue
05:52 / 23.08.04
Worst portrait of Macaulay Culkin EVAR.
 
 
sleazenation
09:26 / 23.08.04
OK here's a contoversial thought - does it matter if the scream has indeed disappeared forever or been destroyed - it has been photographed, copied and pastiched so many time that it is almost guarenteed to live for ever in the popular imagination.

Does it really matter if the bit of cardboard that Edvard Munch actually daubed with oil paints exists anymore or not?
 
 
Benny the Ball
12:34 / 23.08.04
The old is the art in the piece or in the observation of the piece. I've never seen The Scream in person, but know exactly what it looks like. In fact most pieces of art that I have seen that are the big "famous" ones what ever that means, have done nothing for me for seeing them in person (if anything the jostly for a look with masses of people destracted me from the art and made me feel a little claustrophobic and therefore logged as a bad memory).

There is some interesting discussion about art and art theft/copying in one of the Cosmic Trigger books by Robert Anton Wilson (sorry can't remember which one, but there is only three of them and they are all quite interesting). Warhol used to sign Campbell's soup cans and give them out freely. And some "experts" have been conned by duplicates in the past (isn't there a question mark over the Mona Lisa?).

Personally I don't think it matters that it's gone, it's part of the social consciousness in a way that it never would have been if it was all about that one piece of card and that one museum that held it.
 
 
Lea-side
14:30 / 23.08.04
again! didnt this happen a few years ago?
 
 
Benny the Ball
14:35 / 23.08.04
Again?

What happened a few years ago?

The news about the painting being stolen was relseased yesterday.
 
 
Benny the Ball
14:38 / 23.08.04
Oh yeah, there is a bit in the report that says another version of the painting was stolen in 1994. Hmmm, How many screams are there out there?
 
 
Jack Fear
14:46 / 23.08.04
Munch made four versions, in total. Which if anything makes Sleazenation's question more pertinent, not less.
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:16 / 23.08.04
Does it really matter if the bit of cardboard that Edvard Munch actually daubed with oil paints exists anymore or not?

For me, no and yes. No because there are loads of reproductions and texts on the Scream out there. And yes, because there are loads of reproductions and texts on the Scream out there.
 
 
sleazenation
22:41 / 23.08.04
I'm not sure i get your meaning there linus - what is it about the image of the scream that is diminished by the number of reproductions, pastiches etc of it?
 
 
Persephone
02:22 / 24.08.04
The Scream has value as art and as an artifact, yes? They're not the same, but they're intertwined...
 
 
at the scarwash
03:07 / 24.08.04
I've never seen The Scream in person, but I have seen Madonna (the other stolen painting), and I can say that seeing it in person made me appreciate Munch a lot more. Reproductions cannot ever do justice to a work in that medium. You don't need to see the originals of comic book art to appreciate what makes a certain penciler great, nor do you need to see an original litho block to enjoy the printmaker. But painting is different. Paintings work with light and space in ways that make any reproductions almost irrelevant. Seeing one of Monet's gigantic waterlillies canvases in person made me care about the work in a way that thousands of mousepads and coffee mugs completely failed to. So yes, if Munch's painting is lost, something important and irreplaceable is gone.

Oh, and as regards the Munch Museum's security arrangements, the thieves apparently did set off a silent alarm, which summoned the police a bit too late.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:46 / 24.08.04
Someone once told me that they hate the Mona Lisa. They think the painting itself is really rubbish but they love the reproductions of it. I can't stand mid-Renaissance frescos in reproduction, they look like the most boring art on earth but when you walk in to some of the Italian churches they're absolutely amazing.

The original piece of art has to be important if you're interested in the artists intentions. If you don't really care about the work itself and are happy seeing an image of it than that's one thing but generally I think the original piece is going to be more important if only in terms of dimension.

Of course I talk from the perspective of someone who goes to watch Rothko's decay when they're depressed. No reproduction's going to make me feel any better.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
14:43 / 24.08.04
the original piece is going to be more important if only in terms of dimension

...which is possibly particularly the case if something has been reproduced in a lot of different contexts. The more something is seen on mugs, and postcards, and posters of varying sizes, the easier it is to assume that you know what it looks like. Seeing something which is on some level familiar on such a large scale, and (in many cases -but I might just be buying the wrong postcards) with such drastically different colours means that the original can have more impact because it's been reproduced and so assumed to be familiar.
 
 
sleazenation
11:13 / 25.08.04
As the Guardian writesabout the multiple Munchs here today

Reproductions and rip-offs of The Scream often leave out the "background" in their fascination with the weird, ghostly figure - she or he or it. But Munch's nightmare was that seaside scene, the blob of water, the pier veering away, the wavy red bands of fire in the sky, the vortex rush of shore. He depicted this landscape in Despair, in 1892, a year before he painted The Scream, and repeated it in Anxiety in 1894. This abstracted vision of a world cut loose from its moorings is as isolating as the prelude to Tristan und Isolde.

In the same year Munch painted his most famous version of The Scream, now in the National Gallery in Oslo, he painted another, almost identical - and this version was stolen on Sunday. The primary version has also been stolen and recovered, but this time the thieves went to the wrong gallery, and stole the second best Scream.


I'm not sure I am convinced that we should the privilidging of the first variation on the scream as 'the original' - and it would certainly seem that it is subtlely but noticablely different from the scream that seems to have become the most reproduced.

So, to repharse the question - where does the scream lie? in solely in Munch's first iteration of this theme? - withe the reproduced image we are most familiar with being described as Evard Munch's the scream? Or does it exist outside the physical limitations as an idea to be refered to and repeated?
 
  
Add Your Reply